Showing posts with label Michigan primary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michigan primary. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

The Preacher, the Prosecutor, and the Lynch Law

Fresh from witnessing a real, live lynch mob licking their lips for blood in Khartoum, (yes, the victim was rescued, but the miscarriage of justice was there, the victim waiting in terror for the mob), we got our own problems here at home.

They’re getting up a lynching right here in Michigan.

It’s an ugly story, too, not exactly typical, but it's got a stubborn lawman in it, and a preacher man, too, who loves to talk about justice and peace.

Only this time, it’s the lawman who’s the hero, and it’s the preacher who's the one with blood in his eye, trampling truth and due process so he can get at his victim--and he doesn’t give a good goddamn about justice or peace.

Just What Is Lynch Law?
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Lynch law \Lynch" law`\
The act or practice by private persons of inflicting
punishment for crimes or offenses,
without due process of
law
.

Note: The term Lynch law is said to be derived from a
Virginian named Lynch, who took the law into his own
hands. But the origin of the term is very doubtful.


But the victim doesn’t have to die to be a lynch victim. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Or Gillian Gibbons.

The ‘Noose Incident’ of 2007
Just around Halloween a few weeks back, in Mt. Pleasant where Central Michigan University is, a bored student in a science classroom picked up some 12-inch lengths of flexible hose used for compressed gas and tied them into nooses. He did it partly as a Halloween comment, partly to express that "I would rather be hung than do more work on this project", and partly just for something to do with his wandering attention. He hung the nooses, barely big enough to hang a cat, on a wall cabinet, where they didn’t bother anybody, nor draw any excitement, for about a week. He wasn’t intending a racial or any other kind of political statement. He likely learned his American history in American schools, which means he didn’t know much American history. He didn’t know anything about segregation or Jim Crow or strange fruit.

But he did know how to tie a hangman’s noose, God help him.

Then after a week a “male student” saw the nooses, (not identified in any reports as being African American), and he decided to report it to the CMU administrators. As far as anybody’s been able to tell, no black CMU students ever even saw the nooses, nor has any ever reported being threatened with them, by them, or by any suggestion that they existed to warn of an imminent lynching. No matter. It doesn’t take that much to get a University administrator to pee his pants. CMU police were ordered to investigate.

And just as CMU police were getting into asking questions, the preacher man in this story, the Rev. Charles Williams II, (who happens to be a young seminarian in the Rev. Al Sharpton’s Peace & Justice institute), was just being tipped off about a “noose incident” upstate.

Williams was already ambitious for his first big civil rights score. He was Sharpton’s Michigan presidential campaign manager in 2004, and currently leads the state chapter of Sharpton’s National Action Network. Williams had even gotten up his own shell civil rights action group, the National Council for Community Empowerment, so he’d be ready when his main chance came--his Tawana Brawley, his Duke “rape” case, his Jena 6.

Mt. Pleasant Gets Peace and Justice Like a River
And just like that Williams fell like a very fat avenging angel on Mt. Pleasant’s CMU campus, sticking his nose in, getting up impromptu rallies, threatening CMU officials with demonstrations, announcing that he’d already tattled to Sharpton, demanding federal intervention, and of course, leading concerned demonstrators in a call-and-response version of “No Justice, No Peace!” Williams never claimed he had any more facts than anyone else about what actually happened, but that didn’t stop him making baseless accusations, and asking for everyone else's rights to get trampled:

"This could have been a student group," Williams said.
He is hoping that CMU police will investigate student organizations on campus.


It was the urgency of Williams’s mission that made him so impatient with the slow process of fact-gathering; besides, he was past all that, anyway. He already knew exactly how everything had to be played. This is a hate crime, he said, and somebody’s gonna pay for a hate crime.[1]

Meanwhile, it appears that CMU just went about its business normally, in contradiction of one breathless report by a local journalist that the noose incident “sent shockwaves through the CMU campus.” (“Police Determining Whether Noose Incident Was Hate Crime”).

But Williams’s visitation was enough to scare the CMU police into boosting the reward they were offering from $500 to $5,000. A Michigan Senator from Detroit told the FBI they better get in on this, (so he could take credit in a press release). (“FBI Probes CMU nooses”). Then the feds promptly promised, before their investigation even started, that the bad guy was definitely going to face a federal rap. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights flew down to CMU to offer “crisis management.” Then Detroit’s NAACP made a press statement calling for tougher federal laws to “deal with displays of nooses.”). (“NAACP: Feds must toughen noose law”).

Enter the Hero
To hurry things up, Williams tried to intimidate the Isabella County Prosecutor, Larry Burdick, the man who would evaluate the evidence when the police were through investigating. Williams wrote Burdick, on his intimidating Council for Community Empowerment letterhead, trying to mau-mau him about the investigation going too slow, and demanding a meeting, or else, (I'm willing to bet), threatening him with a demonstration. Burdick ignored it. (When Williams later held a press conference denouncing Burdick for dragging his feet, the investigation was still only 14 days old). Why would Burdick need Williams? Burdick knew how to do his job, had confidence in the police investigators, and he knew Williams wasn’t interested in the truth anyway.

They speak of a legend in Isabella County that, right after the Duke lacrosse players case blew up in the corrupt Durham District Attorney’s face, Larry Burdick started going around with one of those little yellow wristbands inscribed with W.W.N.D.?, for What Would Nifong Do?--that way he'd always know to do just the opposite. In this case he knew that Williams was dying for him to go Nifong on this CMU thing--try the person in the press--skip the investigation--just throw the book at him. Burdick wasn’t going to let any of that happen.

'The Hanged Man'
Then, not even a week after the press ran just a few stories pushing around their few hard facts about the “noose incident” and misexplaining about “hate crimes,” a person claiming to be the one who tied the nooses wrote to a campus web site, and wanting to explain why he did it, (because it was Halloween, because he was goofing off, but there was no hatred involved). He also expressed no small amount of disgust at all the fuss.

He even said he was about ready to go to the police to calm everybody down, but he didn’t know if it would make things worse. In fact, he did go to the police next day, (for me, this lends credence to the anonymous web posting being authentic). The web post was presciently signed "--The Hanged Man." The next day he gave the CMU police a statement, and apparently left after without being detained. No report anywhere ever actually stated that he was either arrested, nor charged with any crime.

That is, unless you get your news from newspaper and TV, in which case he was a “suspect” who alternatively “surrendered” to police or was “arrested,” and gave them a “confession”, the error claiming there'd been arrest being especially inexcusable. Interestingly, aside from the fact that he was a “male CMU student,” the person’s identity has so far never been divulged to the public. Nor was his race, age, nor any ethnic identifiers at all. (This was the oddity that drew our attention to this strange case in the first place).

'He'll Be Given a Fair Trial, Then We'll Hang Him'
When he heard there was a student who admitted tying the nooses to police, Rev. Williams II searched his capacious and light-filled soul and could discern no reason at all why there should be any more delay in charging the student with a serious crime and throwing him in jail.

To get things moving, Williams held a stunt press conference in front of the courthouse where Burdick’s office was, and demanded again that Burdick speed up the investigation. Burdick did meet with Williams that day, but, as Williams himself said afterwards, “The meeting didn't go so good.”

His main complaint about that meeting was that Burdick wouldn’t agree with him that the investigation was taking too long: Burdick even told Williams he was going to wait until he had all the evidence before he made any decisions about prosecution! Burdick told Williams, and the press, that he had full confidence in the investigators.

“I have every expectation that it’s a thorough investigation,” Burdick said. Then he promised: “I’m not going to pre-judge a case before I even get the report.”

Williams’s blood pressure was going up and up. Imagine: If Larry Nifong had taken that sorry-assed attitude, where would civil rights be now?

So Williams issued another press release condemning Burdick’s slowness, and of course threatened more rallies.

“My main concern is that there has been no arraignment, no charge, and no movement on this issue,” Williams said.

“Nothing but an investigation has been done,” he said.


Of course! Who ever heard about investigating a crime before charging someone with a crime? Besides, there's been enough investigation:

“Williams said that the authorities have a confession and something needs to be done now.

“He must prosecute now,” Williams said. “Authorities have the confession.”

Man, this guy's in a hurry. He must really believe Al Gore.

Besides, authorities haven’t exactly said the student's explanation was a “confession.” They have a statement, voluntarily offered. We don’t know if it’s a confession yet, because we don’t know if there’s any crime. It’s hard to confess to police about something, no matter how goofy it is, if it isn’t a crime.

This is exactly Burdick’s sticking point.

Ah, but as far as Williams is concerned, it has to be a crime. It just has to be.

Why? Because who ever managed to create a national reputation as a civil-rights champion just holding mass rallies to condemn pranks? (We mean besides Reverend Al Sharpton, of course, and the Lord only made one of him).

So don’t even try talking to Williams about reports that the incident was only a Halloween joke. Rev. Charles Williams II isn’t “buying that.”

“That's not going to fly,” he said.

“This is not just a prank…This is serious and the Isabella County office needs to prosecute to the fullest extent, or we will be calling for a national protest,” Williams said.

This Is Serious?
In spite of what is being repeated in the newspapers, (the worst by far I’ve turned up being Paul Egan’s November 20 article in the Detroit News, ("NAACP: Feds must toughen noose law"), the mere act of “hanging a noose” is still not, per se, a crime under state or federal law. (Still not, that is, so far). While we're on the subject, the Stars and Stripes still fly over the Capitol. (So far).

Under Michigan law, an ethnic intimidation charge requires that a person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's race, color, religion, gender, or national origin, causes physical contact with another person, damages, destroys, or defaces any real or personal property of another person, or threatens to do so.

You can see how that another person technicalities bungs everything up, and also the part about having to show malice and intent.

A federal charge also would require proof that a defendant willfully injured, intimidated, or interfered with any person, or attempted to so by force of threat of force, because of that person’s race.

So federal law gives you the same problems with intent, and there's that need to show force or threat against an actual person. (Here are the sources: THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931, and DOJ summary of applicable federal laws).

The trouble is, none of the evidence that’s surfaced so far in the CMU story shows there was any intent by the student to harass or intimidate anyone, nor did his noose-tying entail any physical contact with another person, nor any threat to another person. And while we all know some angry people are always going to be willing to speculate about other people's bad motives, (and thus at least infer a bad intent when there may be none), there is still no making up for the lack of a victim of the gas-hose nooses.

And yes, there will be persons, angered by the nooses, (persons who never encountered the terrible nooses themselves except to hear rumors of them), who will claim regardless that the mere symbolism of the noose makes them victims. This perverse logic wins every time in public rallies and women's studies classes where the only standard of evidence is who can shout loudest. But fortunately, American law has not fallen so low as to recognize vicarious victimhood as a standard to hold innocent persons criminally liable. Our criminal prosecutions still require actual victims. (So far).

Which means this case is getting less promising by the day, that is, if you had your heart set on seeing a prank treated as a hate crime, and a student treated like a convict.

Last Chance Before the Facts Take Over
Now time's running out for Williams to salvage any of this fading race-hustling opportunity at CMU.

This Tuesday, Williams’s Council for Community Empowerment (bolstered by some Benton Harbor pastors and activists clear from the other side of the state), announced a “national rally” for this Friday in Mt. Pleasant, to show their “concern” about “an unresponsive prosecutor.” ("Benton Harbor Activists Plan to Protest Over CMU Noose Hanging").

But there's one sentence in the Council's own press release that indicates, probably by accident, just how much these concerned pastors and civic leaders already realize what the truth of the matter really is:

the council said a November 26 meeting with two CMU students at the prosecutor's office left them with a concern that the case may be viewed as a prank and may not be pursued as a racial incident.

Since the two CMU students aren’t the ones who are going to make any charging decisions, what this statement tells me is that the accounts of the two students, probably witnesses with personal knowledge, lend support to a conclusion by the prosecutor's office that the noose incident really was just a prank, and not a “racial incident.” And that kind of news, if you're in the professional racial justice business, (which means you are "troubled by," "concerned by," and naturally deplore ALL racial incidents), is one helluva letdown.

And yet, if there’s one thing Al Sharpton teaches you about peace and justice, it's that there's no reason why even a harmless prank, with skill, effort, and public prayer, can't be turned into a racial incident!

On the very same day as the Council's press relase, Burdick announced that he’s reviewed a 66-page report from the police investigators. ("More investigation sought in noose case"). He said after reading it, he turned around and “asked police for additional investigation,” specifically seeking facts “to determine if the elements of ethnic intimidation can be met.” All of which strongly suggest his 66-page report still hasn't shown him those basic elements, yet. (Prediction: he will never find the elements to bring a charge).

Burdick then carefully laid out precisely, for the 1% of the audience who cared about it, the legal burden he must meet before making a determination whether or not to file charges of ethnic intimidation. He said:

“That determination will be based upon the law, as applied to the facts presented. We are now engaged in the process that will facilitate that goal. We will do so as quickly, fairly and as thoroughly as possible.”

Burdick couldn’t speak any plainer that his determination is not going to be based on popular notions about hate crimes, threats of adverse publicity, or grandstanding scare tactics by the likes of the Reverend Charles Williams II. And in all likelihood, (especially in view of the two CMU students who persuaded the justice and peace councillors that the noose was just a prank), his remarks are a forewarning that the expected determination, when it is made, is more than likely going to clear this CMU student of any criminal blame.

Burdick says now that he understands that the noose led to understandable fear and outrage, but “It has provided a lesson that some know too well and others not at all, as to what a hanging noose could mean.”

Though that sounds as if it’s meant to scold the CMU student for his lack of racial sensitivity, I think it’s a backhanded knock at Williams and his fellow hustlers; you see, they also have no idea “at all what a hanging noose could mean,” because they’re so invested in the idea that every noose everywhere must mean an imminent threat of lynching, murder, and racial violence. They've got so much invested they will never admit that sometimes a noose could mean not a damned thing at all, could be just a prank, or a goof-off, with no harmful intent behind it anywhere. (Then again, how can they afford to admit it? Just look at the statistics on noose incidents. They try to make it sound like an epidemic, but really there aren’t enough noose incidents to go around--not if all of tomorrows aspiring Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons are going to have enough action to make it in the civil-rights racket. They've got to make every noose incident count.)

Lots of people know how to tie that hangman’s knot. Sailors tie them. Fishermen tie them. Rock climbers tie them. Even heterosexual scout leaders tie them. And in an idle moment anyone who has learned to tie a certain knot may just find himself absently tying one for practice, or for something to do with his hands, or for the challenge of trying it on a new material--like toilet paper or flexible hose. Should they then hang them to be found and turned over to excitable authorities? I have to say no to that one. Still I have to think if a guy’s truly planning to hang someone he’s going to stick to good old rope. And he won’t leave his nooses behind in the science lab with nobody's neck in them, or where all his labmates can see them.

Which is just my way of saying, (though the mountains may tumble and the skies fall), that sometimes a noose is just a noose.

In which case, people need to shut up and quit screaming that just the report of a noose somewhere turns on some Wayback machine that throws the whole nation back to 1912 Mississippi. As I mentioned before, we had a real-live lynching going on in Khartoum, and none of these concerned preachers had a word to say against it.

Can’t Wait Till the Facts Come Out
Now, I don’t pretend to have all the facts on this CMU thing, either: I’m at the mercy of the media (mercy!), and I’m too lazy to send a FOIA.

It may turn out in the end that this CMU student really is a closet racist: maybe police searches of his dorm room have turned up unwashed bedsheets with eye-holes cut in them, a bullwhip braided from varsity pennants, and proof of a conspiracy of midnight riders pledged to burn, hang, and terrorize minority students at CMU until the school adopts segregated restrooms and a ban on interracial dating.

But I find this unlikely. And not only because none of the evidence that’s surfaced supports that, but because recent historical trends suggest that attempted lynchings of blacks are a statistical anomaly almost reduced to zero, especially in Michigan[2].

But what’s not unlikely, and what's also based on the evidence and recent historical trends, is that self-styled civil-rights demagogues are willing to force prosecutions of innocent people for crimes that never took place, on behalf of victims who were never harmed or who don’t even exist, all in order to boost their own lucrative careers as race hustlers.

How Is This a Lynching?
Reverend Charles Williams II is prepared to destroy this man’s life with a criminal conviction, and a possible jail term, regardless of whether the facts show him guilty of any “hate crimes.” His methods demonstrate his utter contempt for due process, for the rule of law, for the facts, and for justice. All he’s got is blood in his eye.

In fact, Williams is working overtime to make sure this student is charged, prosecuted, and especially punished, when he has probably known all along there was never any criminal intention here.

I'm not making fun of murder by hanging. The noose can be a powerful symbol of the terrifying crime of lynching. But the noose isn’t the only symbol of lynching. There’s also the symbol of the angry unthinking mob, whipped up by some usually self-appointed rabblerouser who yelps impatiently that while everybody's “wasting time with all this legal mumbo-jumbo" the criminal goes unpunished, which is why people need to "take action now!” Sound familiar at all? Maybe that's one difference between real justice and a lynching. Real justice is never in a hurry, while you can't get a lynching done fast enough.

And this business at CMU is a lynching.

And the whole thing screams “no justice.”


[1] Williams had other reasons to be in a hurry. There were other “noose incidents” being reported around the country that he was too far away to exploit. In October there was an incident at Columbia University where a noose was tied to the door of a black professor’s office, for which a rival professor was unjustly blamed in the rush to lynch a suspect.

Then just before the CMU “crisis” in November there was a curious one at North Carolina State University where someone in a maintenance shop where students never set foot had hung a ten-inch noose, made out of toilet paper, in a rest room stall--and the North Carolina NAACP was already in full threat mode. When the NCSU administration sent out an email in response to that incident, student activists declared it lacked sufficient “strong emotion”; so protesters started demanding action first, talking and investigation later--or not at all. Sample student reactions were not promising that the demonstrations were not going to become hysterical circuses. "It's the embodiment of intimidation," senior Jaron Hinton said of the noose. "It should have gotten as much media coverage as the lacrosse incident." ("Noose angers students').

Candace Lee, the campus NAACP organizer at NCSU who threw together a "discussion" event with the guess-how-this-turns-out title of “Let's Talk About It -- Jena 6 Part II, It's Time to Act,” said “the administration needs to prosecute whoever made the noose, no matter who it is or what their ethnicity,”; and Lee had absolutely no patience for any stupid details about the lack of a victim--or for that matter--the actual levity of the underlying offense:

The materials used to make the noose were less important than its possible message, Lee said.
"It doesn't matter if it's tissue or a rope, if it's a noose," she said. "African Americans should be angrier," Lee said.

Another student protester, probably not a physics major, proposed this realistic civil-rights goal for his fellow activists:


"We need to keep someone from hanging from the other end of that noose."

[2] One source says Michigan’s last lynching/homicide was in 1893, and the victim was white. A more famous case of an attempted lynching is that of Dr. Ossian Sweet, a black man and prosperous physician, who moved his family into an all-white Detroit neighborhood in 1925, only to have a mob attack his house with stones, and scaring Dr. Sweet that he and his family would perish in a firebombing. Both he and his brother Henry ended up being tried for murder after Henry shot a white man in the mob to death while defending Sweet’s house. Sweet and his brother were acquitted.


Sunday, December 02, 2007

D-I-S-R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Five long years I thought you were my man
But I found out
I'm just a link in your chain


--Aretha Franklin, Chain of Fools

I think that’s closer to 40 years by now. Forty long years.

And it’s the same message to Michigan Blacks from the Democratic Party:

You’re just a link in the chain.

Democratic Party excludes Michigan from national convention

The Democratic Party on Saturday barred Michigan from next summer's national convention, the expected -- and likely temporary -- punishment for holding a Jan. 15 presidential primary.

The national party's rules committee voted to ban all but a handful of Michigan officials from the Denver convention, at which the party's presidential nominee will formally be chosen. The move was widely expected -- it's the same penalty the committee handed down in August to Florida, which like Michigan is holding a January contest. Just four states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- are allowed to do so under the party's calendar rules.


Michigan Black voters:

Do not--

Do not--

Do not kid yourselves.

The Democratic Party is punishing you, fearing not at all that you will make them pay in November 2008. They take you for granted, because they believe so strongly that you're going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter how the Party, or the presidential candidates, treat Michigan’s Democratic voters.

They do this because--

History proves Michigan Blacks always vote for the Democratic candidates regardless of how the party, or the candidates, treat them.

Someone whom I respect profoundly, (okay, it was me) remarked on this last May, after the chicken-shit Democratic candidates refused to participate in a planned televised debate in Detroit organized by the Congressional Black Caucus, only because it was going to be broadcast by Fox News--which terrified them all that they’d be asked a tough question by a Mara Liasson
or Juan Williams, as opposed to carefully vetted YouTube plants.

You remember. The DNC dissed heck out of Black Detroit and the Black Caucus, and the Michigan civil rights and political hotshots stayed home in droves, and never made a peep.

At the time, I wrote a rather pointed post aimed at Detroit’s voters of color: (“Why Buy the Cow When You Can Milk It for Free?”) , making the following, trenchant observation:

Sadly, this story shows up a lot more than just the cowardice of the leading Democratic candidates to face critical questioners on Fox. The real revelation is how cocksure all five candidates must be of Detroit's votes if they can scorn an opportunity to honor the city's primarily black voters in a debate featuring their city.

You can count on it that not one of these dropouts thinks he or she is risking any but the tiniest of political costs by staying away.

And that’s because not one of these 5 candidates seriously doubts that, if nominated, he or she will carry Detroit in November 2008: no matter what he does, or fails to do, to either earn those votes--or earn that respect--from Detroit’s voters.

Isn't it just common sense that Democratic candidates aren’t going to break a sweat to earn what's always been given away for free?

Alas, and isn't this just the treatment Detroit’s black voters have earned from the party to whom they’e always been so faithful--so faithful in spite of everything?

Aretha Franklin once musically explained this predicament:

You got me where you want me
I ain't nothing but your fool
You treated me mean oh you treated me cruel
Chain, chain, chain, chain of fools

For about the 11,507th time since 2000 the Democratic Party has once more shown itself to be actually guilty of the awful things they're always unfairly maligning Republicans for doing, in this case being unconcerned about the "poor," or "minorities," except as they can use them to gain votes.

Even John Dingell, in an extremely unusual moment of near-lucidity, responded in shock to this latest act of disrespect to Michigan by the DNC this way:

“Democrats are the party of the people, not the party of privilege,” Dingell said after the ruling. “The other party is the party of privilege, and yet they have treated all the states equally.”

This isn't supposed to happen, is it, Congressman?

Then there was this to think about:

Before punishing Michigan on Saturday, the committee approved waivers for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, allowing those states to move their contests earlier than their assigned dates -- and prompting accusations of inequitable enforcement of the rules from Michigan officials. All three of those states were assigned January dates that they have moved from; New Hampshire, for example, was assigned Jan. 22, but will vote on Jan. 8.

“The DNC’s selective enforcement of the party rules demonstrates once again the unconscionable power of New Hampshire and Iowa to dominate and distort the presidential nominating process,” Levin said.


That would be Michigan’s Senator-for-Life, Carl Levin, deflecting blame for the DNC’s “selective enforcement” onto New Hampshire and Iowa’s “unconscionable power,” rather than where it clearly belongs--on the DNC leadership and the candidates themselves. They're the ones who take Michigan’s Democratic voters so for granted, and the ones who feel they can treat the state's loyal Dem voters as second-class citizens, and still remain smugly confident that Michigan is a safe Democrat state.

And why are the national Democrats so sure of themselves?

Because it’s still unthinkable to a majority of African American voters to consider voting for the Republican Party, that's why.

And it's not just the differences in the issues and the policies between the two parties. You see, there’s so much more at stake then just naked political self-interest. There’s all that symbolism, all that history, all that baggage of racism and denial of civil rights.

And if you think about it, how could it not require an enormous effort of historical amnesia for the average Black voter to be able to actually throw the lever for a Party that went to war to preserve slavery, that fought against the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, that used the Ku Klux Klan as its armed terror wing, created and enforced Jim Crow, practiced and defended lynching, and filibustered the civil rights act as recently as 1964.

But hey, hold on there!

Hasn't the average Black voter in Michigan already overcome all this historical baggage, because he already votes for the Democratic Party.

Every time.

Faithfully.

And has done for nearly forty years. Forty long years.

Politics is supposed to be driven by self-interest. But in Michigan that theory is not always demonstrated, which is one reason we’re in the shape we’re in.

It also explains why the Democratic Party can go right ahead and disrespect the state’s Congressional Black Caucus by boycotting a televised debate just for not being moderated by their toadies, and then a few months later come back and slap state Democrats around for daring to want an earlier primary date.

"Those spots are reserved for New Hampshire and Iowa turn, folks. Just you keep on moving quietly right on to the seats in the back there."

I'm afraid it doesn’t look as if self-interest is going to be what drives Michigan’s Democratic voters in 2008, either.

Maybe next time? Or not?

One of these mornings the chain is gonna break
But up until then, yeah, I'm gonna take all I can take
Chain, chain, chain, chain, chain, chain
Chain, chain, chain,
Chain of fools

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

They Don't Send Us Flowers Any More

What is it with the Democratic Party and Michigan voters? Is it ingratitude? Is it that they're so confident Michigan is so “safe” a Democratic state they can take Michigan voters for granted? (If so, I wonder what Michigan Democrats have ever done to deserve that kind of treatment?)

Or is it that Michigan’s problems are too real, and too complex, to just throw slogans at, the way Democrats loving throwing slogans around about “health care,” and “climate change,” and “energy alternatives.”

First, in May, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama, all dropped out of September’s Democratic candidates’ debate in Detroit, for the highly-principled reason that it was being broadcast by Fox News, and moderated by the notorious right-wing bombthrower, Brit Hume. (“Why Buy the Cow When You Can Milk It for Free?”).

Now, we learn today that “Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are withdrawing from Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot, dealing a blow to this state's hopes of having Michigan's issues heard in both sides of the 2008 race.” (“Clinton stays, four Dems quit Michigan presidential race”).


As the headline says, Senator Clinton is the only major candidate to keep her name in. The four candidates say they “are pulling out because Michigan, like Florida, has violated national Democratic Party rules by moving up its primary date in a challenge to the traditional monopoly on early voting held by Iowa and New Hampshire.”

Barack Obama’s spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said “This is an extension of the pledge we made, based on the rules that the DNC laid out…We still hope that Michigan Democrats can adopt a process that meets DNC rules and, if so, look forward to fighting for the votes of men and women across the state.”

Got to follow those rules, guys. Can't go against the party leadership. Especially if you want to job of leader of the free world, proving to the UN and the World Court and foreign dictatorships that you’re no one to be trifled with.

Then the News reports this astounding bit:

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick agrees that it's a dangerous strategy, his spokesman said. He said Clinton's decision to stay on the ballot recognizes Michigan's importance in the national campaign.

But he disagrees with the decision by the others to withdraw.

“We aren't just going to stand with Democrats just to be Democrats,” said spokesman Matt Allen. “Given the position the state is in we definitely need to hear from both parities.

“If the Democratic candidates choose not to address the issues facing Michigan, it could be a big win for the Republicans.”

Did we readthat right? Democrats treating Michigan as flyover country could actually make Democrats wake up and vote for the other party? (Are you hearing this, Republicans?)

Even reporter Gordon Trowbridge gets a little bit edgy when he talks about the attitude the Edwards campaign :

Edwards' manager David Bonior, who was a long-time Michigan congressman, defended his campaign's decision to boycott Michigan.

“Michigan is a great state with some of the finest Democrats in the nation, but it's important we respect the role that the four early states play in the nominating process,” Bonior said in a prepared statement issued by the campaign.

“In Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada voters can look their candidate in the eye and determine who is best to bring about real change in America. In these early states issues matter more than money, celebrity and advertisements.

“Voters want and deserve a candidate who represents real people, not corporate special interests, and this primary process will help ensure that's exactly what the American people get.”

It was unclear to whom his criticism was intended -- the Republicans, Clinton or another target.

Except it’s not unclear at all, Mr. Trowbridge. Bonior's target was Michigan Democrats, his former constituents, who have no stake in “real change,” because so many of them happen to work, (or used to) for “corporate interests,” (or what we around here call, “the auto industry”). Edwards has much bigger "real problems" fish to fry, like delivering the White House to the American trial lawyers, and seeing how fast he can get the US out of Iraq. But when it comes to tackling real problems of real productive industries, like we have in Michigan, it's no secret that the Democratic Party doesn't know jack squat. So, say Edwards and Bonior, Michigan voters just need to shut up and let the Mommy Party talk grown-up business with the man at the door.

Those of you from outside our state may remember David Bonior, Michigan’s own “Lord Haw Haw”. One of the last official acts of former Rep. Bonior, was, along with Rep. Jim McDermott, to travel to Baghdad in 2003 as a last ditch effort to protect the Iraqi dictator from inspections, (“Baghdad Bonior”), or otherwise accounting for his unaccounted WMD (I know, I know: but if you can’t tell us where they are, please don’t repeat where they aren’t: they had to go somewhere, or are you one of those who rejects science in favor of blind faith?).

Bonior’s feelings before we invaded Iraq were, ``I think you have to take the Iraqis on their value--at their face value.” But, he had no hesitation saying he thought the American president, “would mislead the American people.”

We are so lucky to have him as one of our former Congressmen.

And we’re not sure why Bonior’s promised talk show on Al-Jazeera fell through. But since he was already so close to the bottom, it was an easy career move for Bonior to attach himself to the campaign of John Edwards.

As is becoming more apparent here in Michigan day by day, (literally), Democratic solutions don’t hold any promise for Michigan’s “real people” and real problems, (e.g., rising taxes, wrecked school systems, fleeing businesses). Republican solutions, like lower taxes, business-friendly policies, school vouchers, could transform Michigan, if Republicans could ever figure out how to reach dissatisfied Democratic voters.

We noted last May that the Democratic candidates were treating Michigan voters as if they were safe, predictable, and could be counted on to vote Democratic in November 2008 regardless of how bad the party treats them. I still think that’s the case, and I still think Michigan voters will turn out for the Democratic candidate. There is just too much party loyalty, especially in the cities and amongst government employees.

But when even a party creature like Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick implies the state could end up voting against the Democrats, things are getting serious.